Talk:Institute of Actuaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Institute / Faculty[edit]

Is it really necessary for the institute and faculty to have different pages? They claim to be separate bodies but lets face it; they're exactly the same. They produce the exact same legislation and exams and even share a website. It's kind of pointless having two different Wikipedia pages. Absolutely any and everything that applies to one applies to the other with the small exceptions of the words "Institute" and "Faculty". Memebers get the same benefits and we can all see each other in the Institute/Faculty's directory. We can also join the same actuarial dining clubs, sit our exams at the same time,(and can even do so at the same location), and get our results at the same time which are posted up with everyone's names regardless of which body the person officially belongs to not to mention all members have access to the same facilities regardless of which body they belong to.--Zoso Jade 10:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are legally distinct, and known by their individual names rather than a combined name, so I would think they should be left as separate articles. With the linkages explained. Psnae 23:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this, agreed. They are very similar, but not identical. -- Avi 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not for long it seems, the two are now very likely to merge.--Zoso Jade (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with approved courses[edit]

I think adding this is too much. Especially if in all caps and taking up a large chunk of the article. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory Thoughts? -- Avi 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed 100% - maybe consider a separate list? --NSH001 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

There is a lot of duplication of material here, and on the Faculty article. In particular, the UK exams are now administered jointly by the two bodies, and everyone sits the same exams, whether Institute or Faculty students. I think all the material on the current exam system needs to be split off into its own article, say Actuarial examinations in the United Kingdom.
--NSH001 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From an efficiency point of view I agree it would be best to merge. However, one cannot help but think it fitting that Wikipedia mirror the claim that these two bodies are separate, regardless of the validity of said claim. Indeed having two separate articles saying almost exactly the same thing gives the reader valuable insight into the real-world administration of the "two" bodies. However, if, as is likely, the profession decides that referring to the two as separate is no longer meaningful (as it is overwhelmingly likely to soon) we can finally merge the two articles.--Zoso Jade (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Medals[edit]

Surely it's worth listing the Gold Medal winners here? To me it seems more noteworthy, and shorter, than the list of presidents.[1]. Qwfp (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (PS I am not an actuary let alone a member of IoA so i'm afraid i'm not going to do it myself!)[reply]

Tense[edit]

Sometimes this article seems to switch from past to present tense in places where it doesn't make sense. Consider revising.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Institute of Actuaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institute_of_Actuaries&oldid=1205185492"